The Bush Recovery

Looks like the economy is in a recovery. In fact now that revised numbers are out some experts are saying we never had a recession. So much for the "Bush Recession" the Democrats talked up. The Bush tax cut was the only "economic stimulus" we got. Timed perfectly, before we knew what the numbers were like.

So I'm told that Clinton was responsible for the boom of his years I can only assume that Bush is responsible for the Lighting Recovery of his years.

[quote]some experts are saying we never had a recession.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Bush is responsible for the Lighting Recovery<hr></blockquote>
:confused:

I'm glad we're playing out this experiment once again - the Reagan Strategy vs. the Clinton Strategy. The data are crystal clear as to which works better, but lots of people, including Bush, apparently don't learn from the past. So now Bush is trying the failed program again. We'll see.

LOL. I knew this was going to happen. Unbelievable. Does anyone listen to me? No.

This entire 'recession' was a crock. It did not exist. We didn't even meet the 'requirements' to call it a recession.

December 2, 2000, Dick Cheney went on television and said the economy was headed towards recession unless the tax cut was passed. They talked up recession, killed shopping sales for the holidays, and people actually bought into the fact that they were headed towards recession for the next few years and started saving money. Businesses changed their strategies as well and laid people off.

But now things are getting better. No kidding. There wasn't a real reason for a recession, it was just all talk. If there was any area that's having a problem now, it's NYC. The economy down there is in terrible shape after the 9/11 attacks. But what does Bush do? He cuts the amount of money they will get.

[quote]Trickle down? $600 bucks in my pocket went to buy art from a Chicago artist. Not what I would call trickle down. <hr></blockquote>

Oh and by the way, don't make it look like you wouldn't have got this money any way. This was just an advance. It wasn't the actual cut., and the majority of that cut goes to the top 1% of tax payers, most of which are Bush's oil friends.

Edit: Does this mean that people weren't out of work? Of course not. Many people were affected. But most were in the computer fields which were headed for trouble any way.

YOUR RETURN ISN'T FOUND MONEY! IT'S YOUR MONEY THAT YOU OVERPAID. Why is that so hard for people to understand? Like some ****ing fairy show up in may or june and gives you some kind of ****ing gift? They lowered taxes and as a result people overpaid even more for that year. So they gave back what you wouldn't have paid.

Trickle down economics doesn´t work unless you use fuzzy logic.
Hehe, I love that wording.
Some how this all reminds me of the "invisible hand" which will help everyone if they simply work to further their own interests. Granted that was mathematically proven wrong wasnt it?

And all you bitching about Bushs tax cuts, be happy that you dont have the BC "librals" making the decisions

[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: The Toolboi ]</p>

Those who dance the dance must look very foolish to those who can't hear the music

<strong>LOL. I knew this was going to happen. Unbelievable. Does anyone listen to me? No...</strong><hr></blockquote>

There's a reason for that.

[quote]<strong>... Edit: Does this mean that people weren't out of work? Of course not. Many people were affected. But most were in the computer fields which were headed for trouble any way.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I see. So there are things that happen independent of what Dick Cheney says. You live in such a magical world, Fran. People just speak and recessions happen. On December 2, 2000 the election wasn't even resolved yet, moreover, your "analysis" conveniently leaves out the trillions in market capitalization that had already evaporated and the fact that GDP had been on a steady slide since the second quarter. Ya think when people started to see their investments go south that might have had more of an effect on the economy than something Dick Cheney said?

Hmmm, Lost my job in July....Apply for unemployment.....September 11th....no jobs...lotsa layoffs everywhere...(Economic Infusion Package?) looking for work constantly....never getting work constantly (or something that doesn't pay the bills).....Janurary....Unemployment Benefits run out...(Economic Infusion Bill...please?)....still nothing....Today the Economic Infusion Bill (at least half of it) is passed and Bush will sign it. Good chance the Unemployment Benefits Extension is eligible for me...good because as far as I'm concerned WE ARE IN A RECESSION!

Actually, when people like elected officials speak, people DO listen. That's why businesses prepared to save money for the long haul, which included laying off workers. That's why people decided to save money and made the holiday season sales very poor.

All of this is a slippery slope- people don't spend money, therefore less jobs are available. That means less people spend money and there are less jobs. So what elected officials say DOES have an impact on the economy. Likewise, when politicians say people are getting better, then people with money tend to be more likely to spend it, and therefore more people get work.

As for the tech sector- yes, it was hit hard. But it was unfortunately inevitable. People like Artman are out of work. That's because there is less money to be made on the internet through banner ads, etc. The bottom just fell out of a lot of dot coms, and there are lots of people in the sector looking for jobs. But for the most part, the economy is NOT in a recession.

Of course the stock market got bad, but for all purposes, it was in March of 2000 that it was really bad.

Yes, but that was based on last year. If you paid your taxes differently this year, you got the money early, and had to pay some later if you weren't careful. Most people thought it was a return from LAST year as well. So that's what the problem was.

Plus, if you guys really want no taxes, move up here to NH.

We just repealed the state property tax that funds education. We have no state income tax. No state gas tax (as of now). No state cigarette tax. No sales tax.

In fact, we have a few toll booths, meals tax, and local property tax and that's about it for the state taxes.

<strong>Actually, when people like elected officials speak, people DO listen. That's why businesses prepared to save money for the long haul, which included laying off workers. That's why people decided to save money and made the holiday season sales very poor.</strong><hr></blockquote>

THE ECONOMY HAD ALREADY BEGUN TO SOFTEN. For three quarters GDP growth was slowing. Look it up for yourself. The Nasdaq peaked on March 10 of 2000. From March to December the Nasdaq lost half it's value. That represents about $3 trillion in lost market value for just that one capital market. Blood was shed on the Dow and S&P 500 as well but not as bad as the Nasqaq. DICK CHENEY, SPEAKING IN DECEMBER, DIDN'T CAUSE THAT TO HAPPEN!!!!! December of 2000 was roughly the time when the Nasdaq had begun to bottom out. You're so determined to blame Bush and Cheney for what happened. The data just doesn't back you up. Give it up.

[quote]Looks like the economy is in a recovery. In fact now that revised numbers are out some experts are saying we never had a recession. So much for the "Bush Recession" the Democrats talked up. <hr></blockquote>

Democrats didn't start the talk of Recession. Cheney and Bush did. It was a ploy to get the tax cut passed, and it worked. Yes, the economy slowed, but a major part of it slowing was the fact that the future leaders of the country were saying we were heading towards recession and that gave them the clue to save money. Thus, the slippery slope I spoke of.

Despite the loss of money in the stock market, the economy was still GROWING, albeit at a slower rate. But we were never in any trouble of a recession until Sept. 11. NYC is still in trouble from it.

The Democrats never talked up the recession. It was always Bush. The Democrats had their own plan to help people who were unemployed rather than businesses, which Bush tried to use as political fodder saying that the liberals were trying to break the spirit of the country which was so united.

It seems oh so convenient now that the economy will be back to booming much 'earlier than expected'. Maybe even around September. Oh right, that's campaigning time! Like we didn't see this one coming.

Democrats didn't start the talk of Recession. Cheney and Bush did. It was a ploy to get the tax cut passed, and it worked. Yes, the economy slowed, but a major part of it slowing was the fact that the future leaders of the country were saying we were heading towards recession and that gave them the clue to save money. </strong><hr></blockquote>

The capital markets started to tank in MARCH. Bush hadn't even secured the nomination then.

[quote]<strong>Despite the loss of money in the stock market, the economy was still GROWING, albeit at a slower rate. </strong><hr></blockquote>

At a successively slower rate. The trend was clear and inevitable. You just can't have that kind of a loss in the capital markets and not have it affect other sectors of the economy. The tech sector was especially vulnerable.

[quote]<strong>But we were never in any trouble of a recession until Sept. 11. </strong><hr></blockquote>

The only quarter of negative GDP had already happened before Sept. 11 even happened.

Fran got it right. While we may or may not have had an actual "recession" per se, the Bush Administration pulled one out of their asses in order to pass their controversial Tax Cut. Why is it that they would do so? The Bushies were losing badly to John McCain and his Straight Talk express, so in an effort to appease the far-right, they devised a tax cut that would benefit them the greatest. He's keeping his base unlike his father. Excellent political spin. Poor leadership. :cool:

Well Fran and BRussell, you have amazed me once again. First though, you do make some points, namely that Bush has used the recession politically.

But, to say that the Democrats "never talked about the recession" is a total lie. Tom Daschle himself actually said "The real reason for this recession isn't the terrorist attacks [or other factors], it is BUSH'S TAX CUT". WHAT THE ****? Explain to me how a tax cut that had only just begun to take effect (in January 2002 nonetheless) could have CAUSED a recession. News Flash: Tax cuts DON'T cause recessions.

On Reagan: Ronald Reagan will go down as one of the most popular and best presidents in history, like it or not. His economic policies DID work. In fact, they literally saved the economy from going from a deep recession into a full blown depression in my opinion. He pushed for massive tax cuts on ALL levels, including the poor, Fran. The better way, BRussell? Are you ****ing kidding me? We had balanced budgets in the 90's for two reasons 1) Because taxes were the highest at any point since WWII, and 2) The Republican house fought ridiculous spending increases tooth and nail. Don't give me that shit about deficits in the eighties either. This was caused by a house and senate that were democratically controlled and spent money like it was going out of style. Sure, defense spending was high. But I would argue that since the Soviet Union had about 5,000 nuclear missles and about 2,000,000 active troops at the time, we needed to spend it.

Face it. Both parties have tried to use the recession to their advantage. What do you expect? My problem is with Daschle. He PERSONALLY held up the stimulus bill in the senate. One can only assume that this was done to delay recovery, thereby creating an extended recesson that caused voters to turn away from the Republican party this November. This is perhaps the most selfish political move (putting a few hundred congressmen and senators ahead of an entire nation's population, in my mind) I have EVER seen, with the possible exception of Al Gore "unconceding" the election and trying to steal it depsite the fact he was never once declared the winner by anyone, ever.

Tax Cut: Despite what the criminal liberal media (and Mr. Daschle) tell you, the tax cut does not primarily benefit the rich. You are smoking crack if you think that. The top income bracket pays 39% of their income to the government (or they did). Is that fair? You know that people that make, say, $200,000 a year pay that much, not just millionares, right?
I got a $50 per check raise with that cut, and I make less than $35K a year. These numbers Daschle points out, the ones that say "if you are rich, you get a new Lexus out of this tax cut, if you are disadvantaged, you get to buy a new muffler" are totally bogus. Tax cuts are based on PERCENTAGES, not just dollar figures. Of course someone who makes $400,000 a year will get a higher dollar figure cut that the person who makes what I do...because they PAY more. NO SHIT! How would you do it?

You know the tax rebate was a DEMOCRAT IDEA, right? Fran441, if you want to complain then complain to your buddies Daschle and Gephardt. Speaking of that, why did my in- laws, who make upwards of 100K a year, get the same rebate I do? How is that fair to them, since they paid about three times the taxes I did?

The recession was/is real, though not as bad as predicted. It was caused by overvalued tech stocks, ludicrously high taxes, rising energy prices in 1999-2001 and rising interest rates in 1999-2000. A severe downturn was averted by drastically cutting rates, and strong consumer and real estate spending. Both parties wish to use this. That's politics. Deal with it.

I just don't know what kind of a liberal revisionist history world Fran441 and BRussell live in. A world where Reagonmics was a bad thing and Clinton was good for the country. A world where paying 50-60% of your income to a federal, state, or local authority is acceptable (trust me, that is what it is). And, a world where tax cuts cause recessions and are bad for the nation. Good God.

[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]

[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

[quote]Originally posted by sjpsu:
Fran got it right. While we may or may not have had an actual "recession" per se, the Bush Administration pulled one out of their asses in order to pass their controversial Tax Cut. Why is it that they would do so? <strong>The Bushies were losing badly to John McCain and his Straight Talk express, so in an effort to appease the far-right, they devised a tax cut that would benefit them the greatest.</strong> He's keeping his base unlike his father. Excellent political spin. Poor leadership. :cool: <hr></blockquote>

Oh **** dude. Are a total moron? I liked McCain and would have voted for him but he was never a threat to Bush and Bush knew it.

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>
But Greenspan doesn't. He acts on the numbers and what he thinks is best. He cut the rate until money was fire sale. Explain that away.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Good point, Scott. But Fran's argument is still silly. In '92 Clinton went around telling us how we had the worst economy since the Great Depression. His over-the-top rhetoric didn't abort the fledgling recovery that was underway then. In the 4th quarter of '92 the economy grew at a 4.8 percent clip. By Fran's "reasoning" that just shouldn't have happened.

First of all, we're not talking about "The Clinton Recovery", we're talking about "The Bush Recovery".

[quote]Tom Daschle himself actually said "The real reason for this recession isn't the terrorist attacks [or other factors], it is BUSH'S TAX CUT".<hr></blockquote>

If Daschle said this, it was stupid. I'd love to see the actual quote, if you have it, because I'd like to know his reasoning. The main reason for this 'recession' was a slowdown of the tech industry coupled with 9/11. But things are bouncing back because the 'recession' was not a 'recession'. The economy's growth slowed down for a few quarters, fell during the quarter after 9/11, and started growing again this past quarter. That's why we're on the way to recovery. Greenspan kept all of the recession hype in check by cutting rates and getting people to spend money. I have a lot of respect for Greenspan, because he seems to know how to keep the economy moving.

[quote]My problem is with Daschle. He PERSONALLY held up the stimulus bill in the senate. One can only assume that this was done to delay recovery, thereby creating an extended recesson that caused voters to turn away from the Republican party this November.<hr></blockquote>

This is preposterous. Both parties had their own stimulus bill. The Republican bill went more towards businesses while the Democrats bill went towards the people who were out of work and needed the money. Then Bush came out saying how the Democrats were trying to destroy the unity the country had (more political spin).

But when spending so much money, it was better to figure out who needed it more- businesses or people. Bush's plans should most certainly not be rubber stamped because of the war, and the Democrats were doing what they thought was right to stimulate the economy. Looks like the economy was able to start recovery on it's own any way,.

[quote]the tax cut does not primarily benefit the rich.<hr></blockquote>

<strong>First of all, we're not talking about "The Clinton Recovery", we're talking about "The Bush Recovery". </strong><hr></blockquote>

No, really? You still can't explain why Bush's talk about recession (and that wasn't the only argument he made on behalf of his tax cut anyway) had such a detrimental effect and Clinton's more alarmist rhetoric didn't. Does the "Fran411 theory about how recessions are caused" only hold true when it's a Republican doing the talking?

[quote]<strong>The economy's growth slowed down for a few quarters, fell during the quarter after 9/11...</strong><hr></blockquote>

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>One could argue that The White House talked the econ' down and Greenspan had to react.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You can't talk an economy down that was already down. Greenspan had to react because he'd gotten the numbers wrong. In 1999 he increased liquidity in anticipation of the possibility of y2k problems. In 2000 he tightened to unwind his y2k play but his tightening came at a bad time for the markets. The air went of the bubble in the spring of the year. Last year, realizing that he'd tightened too much for too long, he reacted again.

The government's been fudging the numbers so long I don't really buy any of it. Since the first Bush administration they've been totally screwing with the way economic statistics are compiled and counted. BTW, this was gladly carried on by the Clinton administration. In the numbers that people are reacting well to there are a lot of "seasonal adjustments" and such. I don't even think the Fed uses the government's numbers anymore.

From an analytical point of view I think recessions are a necessary part of capitalism an important part. They're a time for reflection and learning. Did we bother to learn any lessons from this "recession"?

[quote]Originally posted by trick fall:
<strong>The government's been fudging the numbers so long I don't really buy any of it. Since the first Bush administration they've been totally screwing with the way economic statistics are compiled and counted. BTW, this was gladly carried on by the Clinton administration.</strong><hr></blockquote>Stockman under Reagan had the original "rosy scenario." Clinton and Panetta initially started using the more reasonable GAO numbers, but then later turned back to using their own numbers like Reagan and Bush had done.

[quote] If Daschle said this, it was stupid. I'd love to see the actual quote, if you have it, because I'd like to know his reasoning. <hr></blockquote>

I don't have it. It is the honest truth, though. I couldn't believe it when I heard it. That is verbatim, my friend. I don't know his reasoning either.....

[quote] This is preposterous. Both parties had their own stimulus bill. The Republican bill went more towards businesses while the Democrats bill went towards the people who were out of work and needed the money. Then Bush came out saying how the Democrats were trying to destroy the unity the country had (more political spin). <hr></blockquote>

It isn't preposterous at all. I know there were two versions. But holding up on a something like this is just not right. It was poltical, and that's all. I also never heard Bush come out and say anything like the Democrats are destroying the country's unity.....I did hear Cheyney say Daschle was being an obstructionist....which I agree with.

Now, a couple of points:

I want to know why you think the Democratic bill was better. The House went to the senate with four versions, and Daschle refused to bring them to a vote. Each version contained tax cuts for businesses, unemployment extensions, tax breaks for corporations and at least one accelerated the tax cut already passed. The dems took issue with the large corporate breaks and stalled accordingly. But they all contained other provisions as well. It was a political move by the Democrats, it had to be.

Tax Cut 2001: Best joke? Whatever. Every single American gets relief under the plan. That is a fact, not just rhetoric. Why doesn't the top deserve a break too? You make it sound as if only millionares and the super rich benefit, but that isn't true. I benefited and will continue to do so, and so will you. For God's own sake, Fran441, you do know that the bottom bracket will go down from 15% to 10%, right? You do know that many poor Americans will now pay ZERO tax under the plan, right? In fact, in terms of percentages the upper brackets get LESS of a break...or at least equal. Of course they will get a higher dollar figure, no shit!

Bush believes that no one should pay more than a third in Federal income taxes, and I totally agree. My taxes have already gone down and will continue to do so. And as far as your "advance" theory goes, it is true the recent refund was an advance, but that doesn't mean one has to deduct it from his/her refund or add it into the tax due this year. I know, I just did my taxes. What is the harm in getting it sooner rather than later? And don't even tell me it wasn't worth it....to me the $600 WAS worth it. Since I just wrote a check to the IRS this year (and last) for, well, A LOT of money I think it was definitely worth it.

Also true is rodger_ramjet's comment about Bush wanting a tax cut for many reasons. He proposed his plan before the economy had even BEGUN to turn south. He believed the tax code was unfair and wanted to fix it. It wasn't just about the recession.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Who do you think creates jobs, Fran441? One must bolster consumer spending, investment, and corporate bottom lines. The way to do that is with individual tax cuts, lowering interest rates, and giving corporations breaks as well.

The "evil" corporations have to make money or people lose their jobs.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.